Who would you want to replace Pete if he were to retire?

Talk in another thread about potentially losing Bradley. All year long I'd wondered this question as to him vs Cable as to who you'd want to take over for Pete when he retires. But now I'm reading Bevell's name talked about for the Eagles, crazy enough. So I guess I'll include him in the options. Who you want? And keep in mind there's a decent chance you lose the other guy in the process.

Me. I'm young, energetic, a great people person, and love football and especially football players. I'm a shoe in...

In all seriousness, gotta go with the Cable Guy. What a story that would be, huh? From absolute joke of a coach for a joke of a team when he was with Idaho only to, over a decade later, ascend to the top of the coaching ranks with my favorite team! I love the attitude that Cable instills. It's totally transformed the identity of this team and I think it was one of Carroll's more genius hires.

Bit surprised at the results. I myself went with Bradley. To me, he fits this team's identity a lot more than Cable. He's firely, passionate, young, and amped up. Cable's nastiness works perfectly for the offensive line. I'm not so sure it would be as effective on the team as a whole. I can see the team rally around a guy like Gus a lot more than Cable. Cable's personality could potentially be a bit divisive when it comes to guys who don't play on his side of the ball. Don't get me wrong. I absolutely love Cable as an o-line coach, and maybe even an OC. But I'd go with Gus.

Judging by Allen going all in by going after Holmgren and Pete, I doubt he just hands the reigns over to a assistant. I;m sure he will look for the best possible replacement, especially after the Mora debacle.

Tech Worlds wrote:I didnt vote Gus because I think Gus very well may be Nick Holt.

Why? Because the defense wasn't awesome the one year he was here with Mora?

I get that a good portion of the defense's success needs to be attributed to Carroll. Obviously. But Bradley isn't some schlep who isn't contributing to it at all, and just riding along Pete's coat tails. A lot of people in the league like him, and liked him prior to him coaching under PC. Bradley deserves some credit. He's a young coach growing into the league. All young coaches develop their identity and learn from the coaches they coach under. It shouldn't always be taken as a negative.

On top of that, I don't think the question of "Is it Carroll or Bradley" matters as much to us as it would an outside team bringing Gus in as their HC. For another team that matters much more, as they are asking him to come in and built a team for them. Here, you are only asking him to continue what you already have. And I don't see why he wouldn't be able to do that. Especially after learning from Pete for a few years. Cable, on the other hand, I don't see the same room for continuity. On the offensive line, sure. With the rest of the offense, maybe. But unless he's able to keep the same coaches on defense for a considerable amount of time, I don't see it. You likely have an entirely new set of defensive coaches, new scheme, etc in a couple years.

To me, Gus Bradley has the potential to be a disciple of Carroll. Tom Cable already has his own personal identity. It works like gangbusters for the o-line. But when applied to an entire team it is actually very different from Pete Carroll's. I'm not sure some realize that. I'm not saying it's a bad thing. Just very different from what Pete has built and is winning with. And that's why I'd go with Gus. To me, he represents the best chance at continuity.

Tech Worlds wrote:I didnt vote Gus because I think Gus very well may be Nick Holt.

Why? Because the defense wasn't awesome the one year he was here with Mora?

I get that a good portion of the defense's success needs to be attributed to Carroll. Obviously. But Bradley isn't some schlep who isn't contributing to it at all, and just riding along Pete's coat tails. A lot of people in the league like him, and liked him prior to him coaching under PC. Bradley deserves some credit. He's a young coach growing into the league. All young coaches develop their identity and learn from the coaches they coach under. It shouldn't always be taken as a negative.

On top of that, I don't think the question of "Is it Carroll or Bradley" matters as much to us as it would an outside team bringing Gus in as their HC. For another team that matters much more, as they are asking him to come in and built a team for them. Here, you are only asking him to continue what you already have. And I don't see why he wouldn't be able to do that. Especially after learning from Pete for a few years. Cable, on the other hand, I don't see the same room for continuity. On the offensive line, sure. With the rest of the offense, maybe. But unless he's able to keep the same coaches on defense for a considerable amount of time, I don't see it. You likely have an entirely new set of defensive coaches, new scheme, etc in a couple years.

To me, Gus Bradley has the potential to be a disciple of Carroll. Tom Cable already has his own personal identity. It works like gangbusters for the o-line. But when applied to an entire team it is actually very different from Pete Carroll's. I'm not sure some realize that. I'm not saying it's a bad thing. Just very different from what Pete has built and is winning with. And that's why I'd go with Gus. To me, he represents the best chance at continuity.

You may be correct. Who knows. We thought that about Holt too when we brought him in.

I like Cable because he did ok in Oakland and it was stupid of them to fire him.

I vote Cable because whomever replaces Pete needs to keep the nasty on the offensive side of the ball. Our defense is good but without Pete's guidance, it probably will drift back toward common accepted sizes for DBs and DEs. I am not sure Bradley would be able to hold the current identity of the makeup of the team.

Then again, who would be the OC to implement Cable's offense? Tough call and not looking forward to having to figure this out.

drdiags wrote:Then again, who would be the OC to implement Cable's offense? Tough call and not looking forward to having to figure this out.

Doc, ain't it technically Cable/Bevell's offense already, with Bevell calling the plays based off of Cable's influence? Or did they ditch that this season and hand the reigns to Bevell entirely?

Was the Cable coaching up the running game and Bevell focusing on the passing game legit? Haven't heard much mention of it so far this season.

Yep, but the premise of the OP was that if Cable was made HC, the other two would leave so Cable would need to hire an OC who would implement the run game per Cable's wishes and implement the passing game that would highlight Wilson's skills.

drdiags wrote:Then again, who would be the OC to implement Cable's offense? Tough call and not looking forward to having to figure this out.

Doc, ain't it technically Cable/Bevell's offense already, with Bevell calling the plays based off of Cable's influence? Or did they ditch that this season and hand the reigns to Bevell entirely?

Was the Cable coaching up the running game and Bevell focusing on the passing game legit? Haven't heard much mention of it so far this season.

Yep, but the premise of the OP was that if Cable was made HC, the other two would leave so Cable would need to hire an OC who would implement the run game per Cable's wishes and implement the passing game that would highlight Wilson's skills.

Tech Worlds wrote:I didnt vote Gus because I think Gus very well may be Nick Holt.

Why? Because the defense wasn't awesome the one year he was here with Mora?

I get that a good portion of the defense's success needs to be attributed to Carroll. Obviously. But Bradley isn't some schlep who isn't contributing to it at all, and just riding along Pete's coat tails. A lot of people in the league like him, and liked him prior to him coaching under PC. Bradley deserves some credit. He's a young coach growing into the league. All young coaches develop their identity and learn from the coaches they coach under. It shouldn't always be taken as a negative.

On top of that, I don't think the question of "Is it Carroll or Bradley" matters as much to us as it would an outside team bringing Gus in as their HC. For another team that matters much more, as they are asking him to come in and built a team for them. Here, you are only asking him to continue what you already have. And I don't see why he wouldn't be able to do that. Especially after learning from Pete for a few years. Cable, on the other hand, I don't see the same room for continuity. On the offensive line, sure. With the rest of the offense, maybe. But unless he's able to keep the same coaches on defense for a considerable amount of time, I don't see it. You likely have an entirely new set of defensive coaches, new scheme, etc in a couple years.

To me, Gus Bradley has the potential to be a disciple of Carroll. Tom Cable already has his own personal identity. It works like gangbusters for the o-line. But when applied to an entire team it is actually very different from Pete Carroll's. I'm not sure some realize that. I'm not saying it's a bad thing. Just very different from what Pete has built and is winning with. And that's why I'd go with Gus. To me, he represents the best chance at continuity.

You may be correct. Who knows. We thought that about Holt too when we brought him in.

I like Cable because he did ok in Oakland and it was stupid of them to fire him.

One major difference I see is that Holt didn't call plays during the game at USC. He led the defensive game planning, but Pete was the play caller. That's not the case with Bradley.

SeaTown81 wrote:[quote="Tech Worlds"]I didnt vote Gus because I think Gus very well may be Nick Holt.

Why? Because the defense wasn't awesome the one year he was here with Mora?

I get that a good portion of the defense's success needs to be attributed to Carroll. Obviously. But Bradley isn't some schlep who isn't contributing to it at all, and just riding along Pete's coat tails. A lot of people in the league like him, and liked him prior to him coaching under PC. Bradley deserves some credit. He's a young coach growing into the league. All young coaches develop their identity and learn from the coaches they coach under. It shouldn't always be taken as a negative.

On top of that, I don't think the question of "Is it Carroll or Bradley" matters as much to us as it would an outside team bringing Gus in as their HC. For another team that matters much more, as they are asking him to come in and built a team for them. Here, you are only asking him to continue what you already have. And I don't see why he wouldn't be able to do that. Especially after learning from Pete for a few years. Cable, on the other hand, I don't see the same room for continuity. On the offensive line, sure. With the rest of the offense, maybe. But unless he's able to keep the same coaches on defense for a considerable amount of time, I don't see it. You likely have an entirely new set of defensive coaches, new scheme, etc in a couple years.

To me, Gus Bradley has the potential to be a disciple of Carroll. Tom Cable already has his own personal identity. It works like gangbusters for the o-line. But when applied to an entire team it is actually very different from Pete Carroll's. I'm not sure some realize that. I'm not saying it's a bad thing. Just very different from what Pete has built and is winning with. And that's why I'd go with Gus. To me, he represents the best chance at continuity.

You may be correct. Who knows. We thought that about Holt too when we brought him in.

I like Cable because he did ok in Oakland and it was stupid of them to fire him.

One major difference I see is that Holt didn't call plays during the game at USC. He led the defensive game planning, but Pete was the play caller. That's not the case with Bradley.[/quote]

Just curious.. How do you know this? I am not saying you are incorrect, I just want to know how you know this as fact.

Tech Worlds wrote:[quote="SeaTown81"][quote="Tech Worlds"]I didnt vote Gus because I think Gus very well may be Nick Holt.

Why? Because the defense wasn't awesome the one year he was here with Mora?

I get that a good portion of the defense's success needs to be attributed to Carroll. Obviously. But Bradley isn't some schlep who isn't contributing to it at all, and just riding along Pete's coat tails. A lot of people in the league like him, and liked him prior to him coaching under PC. Bradley deserves some credit. He's a young coach growing into the league. All young coaches develop their identity and learn from the coaches they coach under. It shouldn't always be taken as a negative.

On top of that, I don't think the question of "Is it Carroll or Bradley" matters as much to us as it would an outside team bringing Gus in as their HC. For another team that matters much more, as they are asking him to come in and built a team for them. Here, you are only asking him to continue what you already have. And I don't see why he wouldn't be able to do that. Especially after learning from Pete for a few years. Cable, on the other hand, I don't see the same room for continuity. On the offensive line, sure. With the rest of the offense, maybe. But unless he's able to keep the same coaches on defense for a considerable amount of time, I don't see it. You likely have an entirely new set of defensive coaches, new scheme, etc in a couple years.

To me, Gus Bradley has the potential to be a disciple of Carroll. Tom Cable already has his own personal identity. It works like gangbusters for the o-line. But when applied to an entire team it is actually very different from Pete Carroll's. I'm not sure some realize that. I'm not saying it's a bad thing. Just very different from what Pete has built and is winning with. And that's why I'd go with Gus. To me, he represents the best chance at continuity.

You may be correct. Who knows. We thought that about Holt too when we brought him in.

I like Cable because he did ok in Oakland and it was stupid of them to fire him.

One major difference I see is that Holt didn't call plays during the game at USC. He led the defensive game planning, but Pete was the play caller. That's not the case with Bradley.[/quote]

Just curious.. How do you know this? I am not saying you are incorrect, I just want to know how you know this as fact.[/quote]It was well known. That's one of the reasons Holt accepted the offer to go to Washington.

Edit to add: I perhaps shouldn't say that Holt never called any plays, but Pete had final say, and it was known he did a lot of the play calling on D. I have a DVD of Pete mic'ed up at the Rose Bowl, and he's calling plays throughout. Holt may also have called some, but it was definitely Pete's baby, so to speak.

Last edited by sc85sis on Thu Dec 27, 2012 1:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I don't think Pete can be replaced - merely succeeded. His personal principles are largely responsible for the team we have now. Whomever replaces him...will he need to be of similar philosophy? Or can he just coast for a few years on the team we have now?

Luckily, I don't think we will have to worry about this for a while. Carroll has created a unique situation with unique talent that will be hard to replicate. I'd go young over old and Bradley over Cable.

sc85sis wrote:[quote="Tech Worlds"][quote="SeaTown81"][quote="Tech Worlds"]I didnt vote Gus because I think Gus very well may be Nick Holt.

Why? Because the defense wasn't awesome the one year he was here with Mora?

I get that a good portion of the defense's success needs to be attributed to Carroll. Obviously. But Bradley isn't some schlep who isn't contributing to it at all, and just riding along Pete's coat tails. A lot of people in the league like him, and liked him prior to him coaching under PC. Bradley deserves some credit. He's a young coach growing into the league. All young coaches develop their identity and learn from the coaches they coach under. It shouldn't always be taken as a negative.

On top of that, I don't think the question of "Is it Carroll or Bradley" matters as much to us as it would an outside team bringing Gus in as their HC. For another team that matters much more, as they are asking him to come in and built a team for them. Here, you are only asking him to continue what you already have. And I don't see why he wouldn't be able to do that. Especially after learning from Pete for a few years. Cable, on the other hand, I don't see the same room for continuity. On the offensive line, sure. With the rest of the offense, maybe. But unless he's able to keep the same coaches on defense for a considerable amount of time, I don't see it. You likely have an entirely new set of defensive coaches, new scheme, etc in a couple years.

To me, Gus Bradley has the potential to be a disciple of Carroll. Tom Cable already has his own personal identity. It works like gangbusters for the o-line. But when applied to an entire team it is actually very different from Pete Carroll's. I'm not sure some realize that. I'm not saying it's a bad thing. Just very different from what Pete has built and is winning with. And that's why I'd go with Gus. To me, he represents the best chance at continuity.

You may be correct. Who knows. We thought that about Holt too when we brought him in.

I like Cable because he did ok in Oakland and it was stupid of them to fire him.

One major difference I see is that Holt didn't call plays during the game at USC. He led the defensive game planning, but Pete was the play caller. That's not the case with Bradley.[/quote]

Just curious.. How do you know this? I am not saying you are incorrect, I just want to know how you know this as fact.[/quote]It was well known. That's one of the reasons Holt accepted the offer to go to Washington.

Edit to add: I perhaps shouldn't say that Holt never called any plays, but Pete had final say, and it was known he did a lot of the play calling on D. I have a DVD of Pete mic'ed up at the Rose Bowl, and he's calling plays throughout. Holt may also have called some, but it was definitely Pete's baby, so to speak.[/quote]

No, I think you misunderstood. How do you know for a fact that Pete does not call the plays now, here in Seattle.

I mean, if he doesn't call the offensive plays, nor the defensive plays, just what the hell does he do on gameday? Cheer?

"Carroll has mentioned before that Bradley has great freedom as his defensive coordinator. Bradley calls the plays. When asked for more insight into how they work together, Carroll said he still pays heavy attention to what Bradley is doing, but he trusts his guy."

"Carroll has mentioned before that Bradley has great freedom as his defensive coordinator. Bradley calls the plays. When asked for more insight into how they work together, Carroll said he still pays heavy attention to what Bradley is doing, but he trusts his guy."

Yes. I was comparing Holts roll to Bradley's roll here as just a dc in title but not actually the play caller.

I find it strange that Pete neither calls the plays on offense or defense. Seams to me he would be more hands on.

Tech Worlds wrote:I didnt vote Gus because I think Gus very well may be Nick Holt.

Beat me to it. Bradley didn't show a lot in 2009 and didn't show a lot in 2010 either. The creative blitzing Seattle has shown under Carroll did not exist when Bradley was here in 2009. Bradley may call the plays under Carroll, but I suspect he's not the one who drew all of them up.

Pete Carroll has made more than a few assistant coaches look like geniuses. I don't know if I'd trust Bradley to be the DC without Carroll here, much less HC.

Cable was actually a really solid coach for Oakland that didn't deserve to be fired. He was building a very solid team up there in 2010- they went 6-0 in their division not to mention they kicked the everliving crap out of the Seahawks that year.